May the learning of Daf Yomi be a zchus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of Life.He should be a melitz yoshar for his entire family and Klal Yisroel.

In his newest sefer Nasiach B'chukecha, Rabbi Avi Lebowitz (Rosh Kollel of the Palo Alto Kollel - Jewish Study Network) culls from the many works of the Rishonim and Gedolei Achronim to expound upon, elucidate and analyze the principles discussed by the Chayei Adam. His commentary are written both as footnotes and as additions of specific rules within each category.

Friday, August 11, 2006

The Gemara states that it is said regarding the he-goat that was sent to Azazel ושלח ביד איש עתי המדברה, he shall send it with a designated man, (איש עתי) to the wilderness. The word עתי comes to include that the Azazel goat is sent out even on Shabbos. This teaches us that if the goat was sick and could not walk, the designated man carries it on its shoulders. Although he will be violating the melacha of carrying, this prohibition is superseded by the obligation to perform the Yom Kippur service. It is interesting that this law is derived from the word עתיh. Shlomo HaMelech writes in Koheles בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים, let your garments always be white. The essence of the Yom Kippur service was to gain atonement for the Jewish People, and the atonement was reflected in the red strip of wool, half of which was tied to a rock and half of which was tied between the two horns of the goat. When the Jewish People were worthy, the stripwould turn white and they knew that they had gained atonement, as it is said אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו, if your sins will be like crimson, they will become white like snow. The word Shabbos is derived from the word שב, which means to repent, so it follows that the service that was performed to reflect atonement for the Jewish People would be performed on Shabbos also, as one should always ensure that his clothing be white.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

There is an argument in the Gemora in the following case: Thr kohen gadol concluded the applications of blood from the שעיר לה and subsuquently, the goat which was designated לעזעזל died. Rebbe Yehuda holds that it is not necessary to bring another one to send it off and Rebbe Shimon disagrees and holds that if the confession was not yet made on it, he must bring another one. Rashi states that according to both of them, the sending of the goat does not withold the atonement.

The גחלי אש is bewildered as to how this can be. Klal Yisroel's atnement seems to be dependent on the sending of the goat off the cliff? How can it be that we are not obligated to bring another one?

He does give an answer, but I am not certain as to the explanation. However, he does say that even in the above case, the kohen gadol would confess the sins of Klal Yisroel without the goat being there (seems like a big chidush to me).

The Gemora in Chulin proves from פרה אדומה and the שעיר המשתלח that we rely on a majority, for otherwise one could question the validity of these korbanos for perhaps they might be a טריפה. Since the majority of animals are not a טרפה, we are not concerned.

Tosfos asks that perhaps it is not because of רוב, rather it is due to a chazakah? An animal which is a טריפה has a חזקה that it will not live? Tosfos HaRosh comments that this chazakah is applicable by these two קרבנות for they are in their second year and the חזקה states that a tereifa cannot live longer than a year. (See there for explanations as to why this חזקה is not considered a חזקה.)

Reb Shimon Arye Yuzuk asks the obvious question. The שעיר המשתלח is only valid if it is within its first year. How does the Tosfos HaRosh equate this korban with a parah adumah which can be in its second year?

He answers based on our Gemora. The Rosh can hold that regarding the age of an animal in relevance to korbanos, a year is calculated by Beis Din, which would include the extra month by a leap year. However, in regards to an animal living longer than a year when it is a טריפה, he would rule that this is dependent on a twelve month year regardless if there is an extra month. (This is an argument between the שכ and the פרי חדש.) A goat which was born last year in the month of Cheshvan and it was a leap year will still be valid for the korban, for we give it the extra month, yet it would be a proof that it is not a tereifa, for it is in its second year in that regard.

As to what the logic is to make such a distinction, I do not know, but the calculation works!!

The Gemora states that if one designated an animal for a Korban Pesach and it got lost and he chose another one and subsequently the first one was found, he should use the first animal. However, if the second one is of a superior quality, he should bring that one. Tosfos comments that this is not applicable by the two goats. Here, the mitzva is always to bring the initial one, even if the latter one is a better animal. He says that the Gemora's halacha would only apply 'בגבולין' or on a korban that is brought in the azarah, however the goats which are burned outside of the three camps, this din does not apply.

The Chacham Tzvi explains the Tosfos that even though the fats of the goat are burned on the mizbeach, its meat is burned outside the camps. The one which is the better animal will be redeemed and used as a korban olah, where the entire animal will be brought on the mizbeach. This is more preferable.

He concludes that if one had prepared wax candles for lighting the menorah on Chanukah and then olive oil was brought to him, he should use the oil. The same would be true regarding an esrog. One should always use the nicer one, even if it was not the first and even if he was ready to use the other. The Shvus Yaakov disagrees with this.

Our Gemora states that the 'pushing off the cliff' by the שעיר המשתלח is considered like a שחיטה. The רשש in Pesachim and the Minchas Chinuch ask why do we not say this concept by שור הנסקל as well. Let us say that the stoning of the ox constitutes a שחיטה and one should be prohibited from shechting the son on that day? Reb Chaim Ozer answers that this rule only applies by a mitzva, however by a punishment it does not.

Tosfos discusses if we can equate the concept we have by the שעיר המשתלח to an עגלה ערופה.There is a din if we find a corpse of a man that has been murdered between two cities and we can not verify the killer, we must bring a calf and cut off its head and that serves as an atonement. Do we say there that the cutting of its head constitutes a shechita and therefore it will not be considered a neveila and there would be the איסור of אותו ואת בנו and we would not be allowed to shecht its mother.

The Minchas Chinuch asks on a ruling of the Rambam. The Rambam states that if one is shochet the calf, there would be an issur to shecht the mother. Why doesn't the Rambam teach us a bigger chidush, that if he chops off its head it is deemed to be a shechita and there would be that prohibition?

Rav Rudderman in his Sefer Avodas Levi answers that this concept that something can be considered a shechita (even though it isn't) can only be by something that is in the regular category of kodoshim where we find the concept of shechita. This would be applicable to the שעיר המשתלח. However, the עגלה ערופה is in a category of kodoshim all by itself and there we do not find shechita, so the chopping off of its head cannot be considered a shechita. He adds that this is true by the melikah of a kodoshim bird as well.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

The Gemora brings cases by the שעיר that it will be פסול because it is considered a מחוסר זמן. One of the cases is where we shechted the mother because someone was sick and now we cannot bring the שעיר because there is an איסור to shecht a mother and its son on the same day. The Gemora asks that we are not shechting the שעיר, rather we are pushing it off a cliff and that should not be included in the prohibition. The gemora answers that דחייתו לצוק זו היא שחיטתו - pushing it off constitutes a שחיטה.

The Sfas Emes comments that it is only considered a שחיטה in regards to not being deemed a נבילה and the limbs can be permitted to derive pleasure from, however it cannot be eaten because it is not regarded as a זביחה and the Torah says וזבחת ואכלת.

The אתוון דאורייתא concurs, yet he says that he doesn't quite understand the logic how it can be considered a שחיטה for some things and not others.

The raffle is the method used to determine which will be the goat for the korban and which will be sent off the cliff. The Gemora in Sanhedrin states the significance of a 'goral' when Yehoshua rebuked Achan and told him that Eretz Yisroel will be divided utilyzing a 'gorel.' It is written in the name of the Gaonim that a 'gorel' is heaven-sent. The Chavos Yoir writes that when a gorel is done properly, it can be considered hashgochas Hashem. The Ran writes that a gorel can also be called a פייס, for it resolves potential fighting among the kohanim. This is why it is found at times that mourners should use a gorel when there is an issue as to who should daven for the amud. Knowing that when done correctly, it is being resolved with hashgocha can certainly be beneficial to all the parties involved.

It is learned in the Mishna that both goats should have the same appearance.

Ritva says that even though it is impossible for two animals to be precisely the same, like it is stated in Yerushalmi that even two grains of wheat will not be exactly alike, nevertheless, they should try for them to be as similar as possible. Tosfos Yeshonim says that two people cannot appear the same as the Gemora in Sanhedrin states, however animals could be similar. Rashi in Sukkah says that even apples on a tree cannot be the same as another.

The Gemora states that if one designated an animal for a Korban Pesach and it got lost and he chose another one and subsequently the first one was found, he should use the first animal. However, if the second one is of a superior quality, he should bring that one. שערים מצויינים בהלכה proposes according to this a new halacha. If one was given the privilege to serve as the chazan on the Yomim Noraim or to blow the shofar and he fell sick, so they chose a substitute, and then on Yom Tov became better, it should be up to the congregation as to which one is considered the 'muvchar.' (Perhaps, he says, it should be decided through a lottery.)

The Yerushalmi also learns that if there are two animals and one is a fattier animal, however the other looks better, the fattier animal should be chosen.

Monday, August 07, 2006

The Mishna states a halacha that the two goats should be similar in appearance, height and value. The Sfas Emes asks that isn't it obvious if the animals look the same and are the same size, that the value will be equivalant? He answers that there is a concept that the 'third calf' born from a cow is a superior quality than the others, even though they look precisely the same. The Reshash seems to explain like this according to a Yerushalmi.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

רבי חנינא stated that if he did the ketores before the shechita of the par, he must do the ketores over again. I was wondering as to when would the kohen gadol enter the Kodesh Hakodoshim in order to remove the first kaf and machta that he placed there? Does he do that when he realizes that he must do the ketores again? Perhaps, he goes in with a different kaf and machta and on his way out, he removes the first set? Is there enough room between the poles of the Aron to have the first kaf and machta with the ketores and now have a second?

In the first Beis HaMikdash, there was a wall separating the Kodesh from the Kodesh HaKadashim, with a curtain in the middle. In the second Beis HaMikdash, there was no wall and either 1 or 2 curtains. According to Yechekel’s accounting of the third Beis Mikdash, the entrance to the Kodesh HaKadashim will be 6 amos by 7 amos, which sounds again like the case of a wall with a paroches in the middle.

When describing the blood applications for the Incense Altar, the Gemara discusses at some length the different opinions for what corner should be started at. This is based on the two opinions for whether there was 1 curtain or 2, since one opinion had the Kohen Gadol emerging from the North, and the other from the South. The Gemara never discusses the order that was used for the Incense Altar applications in the first Beis HaMikdash, where the Kohel Gadol presumably emerged from the center. Given that it seems like the Third Beis HaMikdash will be more like the first, and the second is already destroyed, (a) why does the Gemara spend time discussing issues pertaining to the second temple curtains, which will never again be relevant, and (b) why does the Gemara NOT discuss how this procedure was done in the first Temple, which is more likely to have relevance to the third Temple?

There are a number of other places already covered in Yoma where a similar question could be asked, but I only thought of it here.

The Gemora states that it is necessary to have 43 total sprinklings from the goat and the bull in total, however they do not all have to be from the same animal. If the blood spilled after the avodah in the Kodesh Kodoshim, that does not have to be repeated. He can start from the sprinklings in the Heichal (on the peroches). The Brisker Rov proves from here that the 43 total הזאות which are mandated are not to permit the korbonos to be brought (for if so, it would be required to have from the same animal), rather it is an obligation for the day and could be fulfilled through different animals. The Chazon Ish states that this halacha is only true by the korbanos of Yom Kippur. However, by other korbanos, such as a פר העלם דבר or any korban which mandates sprinklings in two places (the peroches and the mizbeach), it must be done from the same animal.

The Gemora states that if the kohen gadol slaughtered the goat before he sprinkled from the blood of the bull, לא עשה ולא כלום - it is not valid and he must bring another goat. We learned yesterday that ולא כלום means that he did not commit an aveira either (besides not fulfilling a mitzva). Isn't shechting the goat on Yom Kippur with no positive result considered a desecration of Yom Kippur?

The Steipler Gaon explains by the ketores that even if it was burned for no reason, it is not a violation of Yom Kippur for he ruined the ketores and it is deemed to be מקלקל,so too says the שערים מצויינים בהלכה here, we can say that shechting the goat does not create any benefit, for there is a prohibition to have pleasure from it and therefore it would not be מלאכת מחשבת and hence he would be פטור.

The Baal HaTurim on the passuk "U'malei chofnov" says that there is another place in Tanach where there is a similar usage of this word. In Shmuel it states "U'malei hachevel l'hachayos." This, he states, teaches us that in the merit of the service on Yom Kippur, Klal Yisroel will be zoche to be victorious in war.

In the Sefer Imrei Shammai, he explains a Gemora in Sotah according to this. Yochanan kohen gadol once heard a heavenly voice (bas kol) emanating from the Kodesh Kodoshim proclaiming victory in Antuchya. Rashi explains that there were some young kohanim who went to fight the Greeks before Yom Kippur and were still fighting on Yom Kippur. The message that he heard was in the merit of the avodah on Yom Kippur, they were victorious.

Let us be mispallel that in the z'chus of learning and delving into the Yom Kippur avodah, we too will be zoche to a speedy victory.

There are several times in shas that it states לא עשה ולא כלום. The רמע מפאנו explains this statement as follows: לא עשה means that he did not fulfill the mitzva and ולא כלום means that he did not do an aveira either. The Mishna states that if the kohen gadol performed one avodah before the other - לא עשה כלום. This is referring to the sprinkling of the דם השעיר in the Kodesh Hakodoshim before the sprinkling from the פר. In this instance, besides not fulfilling the mitzva, there is an aveira as well, for he entered the Kodesh Hakodoshim unnecessarily and is considered a ביאה שלא לצורך. The Gemora on עמוד ב discusses a case where he performed the חפינת הקטרת prior to the slaughtering of the פר and here the Gemora says לא עשה ולא כלום. This is understood because there is no aveira being committed for the חפינה is done outside. There is no mitzva or aveira. (שערים מצויינים בהלכה)

Did you come across any instance of either one of those expressions recently? Tell us about it and lets see if the yesod fits. Thanks

Learn Gemara Brochos in Depth - Listen and Download Audio Shiurim

Let us help you learn the Daf

Daf Archive

Daf Archive will have the listings of every post, according to the Mesechta and the Daf.
Just click below and you will be directed to Daf Notes - Yevamos. There, you can click on whichever Daf that interests you.

Daf Notes Discussion

Daf Notes Discussion will be posting comments from guest bloggers who will submit Divrei Torah on the weekly Parsha and other timely topics.Just click below on whatever interests you.Daf Notes Discussion